Matthew passed over Jesus' childhood quickly to relate His preparation for presentation to Israel as her King.
"The material of this section of the Gospel is particularly important since the baptism of Jesus serves as the occasion of his special anointing by the Holy Spirit for the ministry that follows, but it is also Christologically significant in that his divine Sonship is confirmed and the non-triumphalist nature of the present phase of that Sonship is indicated (3:17c and 4:1-11). Thus Matthew provides information that is vitally important to an understanding of the narrative that follows: what Jesus does in his ministry he does by the power of the Spirit; yet Jesus will not act in the manner of a triumphalist messiah, in accordance with popular expectation, but in his own unique way, in obedience to the will of his Father."119
It was common when Jesus lived for forerunners to precede important individuals to prepare the way for their arrival. For example, when a king would visit a town in his realm his emissaries would go before him to announce his visit. They would make sure the town was in good condition to receive him. Sometimes his servants even had to do minor road work to smooth the highway the king would take as he approached his destination.120John not only prepared the way for Jesus but also announced Him as an important person and implied His royalty. John preceded Jesus in His birth, in His public appearance, and in His death.
"As Jesus' forerunner, John foreshadows in his person and work the person and work of Jesus. Both John and Jesus are the agents of God sent by God (11:10; 10:40). Both belong to the time of fulfillment (3:3; 1:32). Both have the same message to proclaim (3:2; 4:17). Both enter into conflict with Israel: in the case of the crowds, a favorable reception ultimately gives way to repudiation; in the case of the leaders, the opposition is implacable from the outset (3:7-10; 9:3). Both John and Jesus are delivered up' to their enemies (4:12; 10:4). And both are made to die violently and shamefully (14:3-12; 27:37)."121
3:1-2 John appeared "in those days"(v. 1). This phrase is a general term that says little about specific time but identifies what follows as historical. It is a common transitional statement in Matthew's narrative.122John's ministry, as Matthew described it here, occurred just before the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, approximately 30 years after the events of chapter 2.
"John"became a popular name among the Jews following the heroic career of John Hyrcanus (died 106 B.C.). There are four or five Johns in the New Testament. This one received the surname "the Baptist"because of his practice of baptizing repentant Jews (v. 6).
John was a herald with a message to proclaim. "Preaching"is literally heralding (Gr. kerysso).
"In the New Testament the verb does not mean to give an informative or hortatory or edifying discourse expressed in beautifully arranged words with a melodious voice; it means to proclaim an event' . . ."123
The event John proclaimed was the imminent arrival of God's kingdom.
The scene of John's ministry was the wilderness of Judea. This loosely defined area lay mainly to the west and somewhat north of the Dead Sea. John evidently conducted his ministry there because of its rough conditions that were suitable to his appeal for repentance. In Israel's history the wilderness forever reminded the Jews of their 40-year sojourn under extreme conditions and God's giving them the Law of Moses. They associated it with a place of separation unto God and testing for refinement.
John called the people to repent (v. 2).
"Contrary to popular thinking, repent does not mean to be sorry. The Greek word metanoeomeans . . . to change one's mind or purpose . . .'124In the New Testament it . . . indicates a complete change of attitude, spiritual and moral, towards God.'125The primary meaning involves a turning to God which may indeed make a person sorry for his sins, but that sorrow is a by-product and not the repentance itself. . . . In a word, John's command to the people of Israel was for them to turn from their sins to God in anticipation of their Messiah."126
The Jews needed to change their thinking because most of them believed that they would enter the Messiah's kingdom simply because they were the children of Abraham (v. 9). John was attacking established religious concepts of his day and those who taught them. He demanded evidence of genuine repentance instead of mere complacency, hypocrisy, and superficiality (cf. v. 8).
John also announced that the kingdom of heaven (lit. the heavens) was at hand. What was this kingdom? Students of this question have offered five basic answers.
First, some say that Jesus simply continued the Old Testament prophets' ethical and social ideals, and He taught that people who followed these became a part of God's kingdom. This is the old liberal interpretation that emphasizes the ethical dimension of prophetic teaching to the exclusion of its eschatological content.
Second, some believe that Jesus adopted both the ethical and eschatological teachings of the Old Testament but changed His message later because the Jews rejected Him. They view God's kingdom as Jesus presented it as very different from the kingdom the Old Testament prophets predicted. This view is unacceptable because Jesus' teaching about the kingdom is consistent with Old Testament prophecy, though He added new revelation on the subject.
Third, some interpreters have concluded that Jesus appropriated certain spiritual elements in the Old Testament kingdom prophecies. However, they say, He either omitted or spiritualized the physical elements (e.g., an earthly kingdom in the land of Canaan), and He added some original ideas of His own. The problem with this view is its inconsistency. Many of the physical aspects of Old Testament kingdom prophecy happened literally as predicted (e.g., Jesus' birth in Bethlehem).
Fourth, some believe there are two kingdoms. Advocates argue that at His first advent Jesus offered and established on earth a spiritual kingdom of which all believers have become partakers. At His second advent Jesus will establish on earth a physical earthly kingdom. The text, however, offers no support for this bifurcation of the kingdom. In the Old Testament it was always an earthly kingdom.
"Traditional dispensationalists sometimes contended that the term kingdom of Godreferred to the sphere of reality and kingdom of heavenonly to the sphere of profession, which encompassed both genuine believers and merely professing believers. In this view, also, the kingdom of God was cosmic and universal in its dimensions, having authority over all creation, while the kingdom of heaven was limited to the earth.127
"Most recent advocates of a distinction acknowledge that the two expressions are often used synonymously,' yet are to be distinguished in certain contexts.128Others who would generally be identified with dispensationalism agree with most non-dispensationalists that no distinction between these expressions is intended by the biblical writers.129Matthew's use of the kingdom of heaven' is to be explained as a Semitic idiom probably resulting from the Jewish reverence for the name of God and the tendency to use heaven' or heavens' as a substitute.130So, although some dispensationalists still distinguish the two terms in some passages, we agree with Ryrie that this issue is not a determinative feature of dispensationalism.131
Fifth, there is the one earthly kingdom view. Those of us who hold it believe that the kingdom that John, Jesus (4:17), and His disciples (10:7) announced and offered the Jews was exactly the same kingdom that the Old Testament prophets predicted. Because the Jews rejected their King and His kingdom, God postponed the kingdom until a future time when Israel will accept her Messiah, namely at His second advent (cf. Zech. 12:10-14). Similarly because the generation of Jews that left Egypt in the Exodus refused to trust and obey God at Kadesh Barnea, God postponed the nation's entrance into the Promised Land for 38 years. This view, I believe, best harmonizes the normal meaning of the Old Testament kingdom prophecies and Jesus' teachings.132
There is good evidence that the kingdom that John and Jesus spoke about was the earthly eschatological kingdom that the Old Testament prophets foretold. First, the fact that John, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples did not explain what it was but simply announced that it was near indicates that they referred to a kingdom known to their hearers.133Second, Jesus restricted the proclamation about the kingdom to Jews (10:5-6). If the kingdom was spiritual, why was this necessary? Moreover the inauguration of the kingdom predicted in the Old Testament depended on the Jews receiving it. Third, Jesus' disciples expected the beginning of an earthly kingdom (20:20-21; Acts 1:6). They did so after they had listened to Jesus' teaching about the kingdom for a long time. Fourth, this kingdom cannot be the church since God had not yet revealed the existence of the church let alone established it (16:18). It cannot be God's universal reign over the hearts of mankind since that had existed since creation.
". . . if the Kingdom, announced as at hand' by the Lord, had been exclusively a spiritual kingdom,' or as some have defined it, the rule of God in the heart,' such an announcement would have had no special significance whatever to Israel, for such a rule of God had always been recognized among the people of God [cf. Ps. 37:31; 103:19]."134
Therefore we conclude that when John spoke of the kingdom of heaven (v. 2) he meant the earthly kingdom over which Messiah would rule, which the Old Testament prophets predicted.
"Only the premillennial interpretation of the concept of the kingdom allows a literal interpretation of both Old Testament and New Testament prophecies relating to the future kingdom"135
There is some disagreement among those who hold this view (i.e., premillenarians) concerning the terms "kingdom of heaven"and the more common "kingdom of God."Some believe they are synonymous, others hold that they refer to two different entities, and still others see a difference of emphasis but only one entity. Matthew preferred the term "kingdom of heaven,"and he used it except in 12:28; 19:24; 21:31; and 21:43.136
Here are the major arguments of those who see a distinction between the two terms and the responses of those who do not. First, usage suggests that "the kingdom of God"includes only genuine believers whereas "the kingdom of heaven"also includes merely professing believers.137This distinction is very difficult if not impossible to prove. For example, Jesus laid down rigorous requirements for entrance into the kingdom of heaven (5:20; 7:21; 18:3). Second, usage suggests that "the kingdom of God"refers to His internal rule over believers whereas "the kingdom of heaven"refers to Messiah's earthly reign.138However, John announced the nearness of the kingdom of heaven (3:2), and Jesus announced the nearness of the kingdom of God (12:28; Mark 1:14-15; cf. Luke 10:9). Evidently both terms refer to the earthly eschatological kingdom. Third, the fact that Matthew used both terms in his Gospel has convinced some interpreters that he intended some distinction between them. One explanation of this difference is that Matthew alone among the Gospel writers used the term "the kingdom of heaven"because of his Jewish audience and his general purpose. The term itself comes from Daniel 2:44; 4:26, 37; and 7:27. These references occur in the Aramaic portion of Daniel's prophecy. Most Palestinian Jews living in Jesus' day could not read Hebrew, but Aramaic was their vernacular. Consequently Matthew's original readers would have been familiar with this term, and he evidently used it to connect the kingdom now offered with the one Daniel had predicted.139
"Our Lord, Who spoke in Aramaic, would always use this phrase, and when writing in Greek, Matthew, in keeping with the special scope and character of his Gospel retained it, whereas, in the other Gospels the figure was translated as being what it also, although not exclusively, meant, the Kingdom of God."140
The Jews often substituted another word in the place of God's name because they wanted to avoid using God's name in vain.141By substituting the term "heaven"for "God,"Matthew accommodated himself to his readers' Jewish preference.142
Why then did Matthew use the term "kingdom of God"at all? Whenever he used the term "kingdom of God"he apparently did so to stress deliberately the character of the kingdom as involving the rule of God (e.g., 12:28). Whenever he used "kingdom of heaven"the emphasis is on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy about the kingdom. The same kingdom is in view, but Matthew described it to suit his purpose.143
It is particularly important to distinguish the church from the kingdom. The kingdom, whether "of heaven"or "of God,"always refers to the earthly reign of Messiah as predicted in the Old Testament. The church will play a part in the kingdom, but they are separate entities.144Matthew maintains this distinction throughout his Gospel as do the other New Testament writers.
What did John mean when he announced that the kingdom was "at hand"(v. 2)? The Greek verb eggizomeans "to draw near,"not "to be here"(cf. 21:1). All that was necessary for the kingdom to be there was Israel's acceptance of her King (11:14). The kingdom was near because the King was near.
"If Israel had accepted its Messiah, the earthly kingdom would have been inaugurated by the King."145
This statement may seem to some to render Christ's work on the cross unnecessary, but this is incorrect. Had the Jews accepted their Messiah when He offered the kingdom to them He still would have died on the cross and experienced resurrection and ascension. He could not have been the Messiah without doing so in fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies (Ps. 22; Isa. 53; Dan. 9; Zech. 13). Then the prophecies concerning the seven years of Jacob's trouble would have materialized (Jer. 30:7; Dan. 12:1; 9:26-27). Next Messiah would have returned to set up His kingdom (Isa. 60:1-3; 66:18; Hab. 2:14; cf. Zech. 12:10; 13:6).
Since the Jews rejected Jesus' offer of the kingdom was His offer genuine? Had God not already determined that Israel would reject her Messiah? Jesus' offer of the kingdom was just as genuine as any gospel offer of salvation to someone who rejects it.
"Those who cavil at the idea of an offer which is certain to be rejected betray an ignorance, not only of Biblical history (cf. Isa. 6:8-10 and Ezek. 2:3-7), but also of the important place of the legal proffer in the realm of jurisprudence."146
3:3 "This is the one OT citation of Matthew's own eleven direct OT quotations that is not introduced by a fulfillment formula . . . Instead he introduces it with a Pesher formula (e.g., Acts 2:16 . . .) that can only be understood as identifying the Baptist in an eschatological, prophecy-and-fulfillment framework with the one of whom Isaiah (40:3) spoke."147
In Isaiah 40:3 the voice exhorts the people to prepare for God's coming as He brings Israel back from her dispersion. The prophet then proceeded to describe the blessings that would follow her return. Matthew identified Yahweh in Isaiah 40:3 with Jesus in Matthew 3:3. This means the kingdom of God is the kingdom of Jesus. While this is not an implicit statement of Jesus' deity, it certainly presents Jesus as more than just Yahweh's representative.
3:4-6 In his dress and in his food, as well as in his habitat and in his message, John associated himself with the poor and the prophets, particularly Elijah (cf. 2 Kings 1:8; Zech. 13:4; Mal. 4:5). Poor people ate locusts (Lev. 11:22). He called the people to get right with God because the appearing of their Messiah was imminent. Elijah had called the Israelites back to God at the time of their most serious apostasy. John called them back to God on the eve of their greatest opportunity. He was the first prophet from God in 400 years.
Many people responded to John because they perceived that he was a genuine prophet with a message from God (v. 5).
Baptism represented purification to the Jews. Ceremonial washings were part of the Mosaic system of worship (Exod. 19; Lev. 15; Num. 19). When a Gentile became a proselyte to Judaism, he or she underwent baptism. John's baptism carried these connotations of cleansing with it, but it was different. In the other types of ceremonial cleansing, the person washed himself or herself. John, on the other hand, baptized other people. He probably received the name "John the Baptist"or "Baptizer"for this reason.148
John's baptism did not make a person a member of the church, the body of Christ, since the church had not yet come into existence (16:18). It simply gave public testimony to that person's repentance and commitment to live a holy life. Lenski, a Lutheran commentator, tried to prove that John baptized by effusion (pouring) rather than by immersion.149It is impossible to identify the method of baptism John used from what the Gospels tell us. However extrabiblical sources indicate that Jewish proselyte baptism took place in large tanks (Heb. mikvah) in which the person undergoing baptism stood.150The issue boils down to whether one takes the word "baptism"in its primary sense of submersion or in its secondary sense of initiation.151Likewise it is unclear whether the confession involved public or private acts.
3:7-10 This verse contains Matthew's first reference to the Pharisees ("separate ones") and the Sadducees ("righteous ones"). Significantly, John was antagonistic toward them because they were hypocritical, a trait that marks them throughout the Gospels. Matthew lumped them together because they were Israel's leaders.
"Vipers"is a word Isaiah used to describe God's enemies (Isa. 14:29; 30:6). John's use of it associates him with the former prophets and reflects his prophetic authority.
"The first major appearance of the religious leaders in Matthew's story occurs in conjunction with the ministry of John the Baptist (3:7-10). The importance of their appearance here has to do with the fact that John is the forerunner of Jesus. As such, the attitude that John assumes toward the leaders is predictive of the attitude that Jesus will assume toward them."152
"Except for Jesus himself, they [the religious leaders] are the ones in Matthew's story who influence most the development of the plot."153
John's question (v. 7) amounted to, "Who suggested to you that you would escape the coming wrath?"154The behavior of the Pharisees and Sadducees should have demonstrated the genuineness of their professed repentance, but it did not. Fruit is what people produce that other people see that indicates their spiritual condition (13:21; cf. Mark 4:19; Luke 8:14; John 15:1-6). The fruits of repentance were absent in the case of these leaders. There was no external evidence that they desired to draw near to God in anticipation of Messiah's appearance.
Many of the Jews in the inter-testamental period believed that if one was a descendant of Abraham he would automatically enter Messiah's kingdom.155They counted on the patriarch's righteousness as sufficient for themselves. However, God had often pruned back the unrighteous in Israel and preserved a remnant in its history. As Matthew continued to point out in his Gospel, many of the Jews refused to humble themselves before God and instead trusted in their own righteousness. The Pharisees and Sadducees were doing that here.
John's reference to "stones"(v. 9) was a play on words with "children"in both the Hebrew and Aramaic languages. If stones could become God's children, certainly Gentiles could.
Verse 10 gives the reason the Jews needed to repent. Divine judgment would precede the establishment of Messiah's kingdom (cf. Isa. 1:27; 4:4; 5:16; 13:6-19; 42:1; Jer. 33:14-16; Dan. 7:26-27). The Jews connected the concepts of repentance and the messianic age closely in their thinking.156John announced that this judgment was imminent (vv. 10-12). Any tree (better than every tree) that does not bear good fruit, regardless of its roots, will suffer destruction. Probably John had individuals and the nation of Israel in mind.
The reference to fire in verse 10 pictures the judgment and destruction of those who fail to repent (cf. "wrath,"v. 7, and "winnowing fork,"v. 13). For individuals this judgment would involve eternal destruction (v. 12) assuming there was no later repentance. For the nation it would involve the postponement of the kingdom and its attendant blessings.
3:11-12 John baptized in water "in connection with"repentance.157However the One coming after him, the King, would baptize with the Holy Spirit (cf. Joel 2:28-29) and fire (cf. Mal. 3:2-5). The Malachi prophecy speaks of fire as a refining or purifying agent, not as an instrument of destruction. Both prophecies involve the nation of Israel as a whole primarily.
Are these two different baptisms or one? This is a very difficult question to answer because the arguments on both sides are strong.158In both interpretations baptism connotes both immersion, in the metaphorical sense of placing into something, and initiation.
The construction of the statement in the Greek text favors one baptism. Usually one entity is in view when one article precedes two nouns joined by a conjunction.159This would mean that the one baptism Jesus would perform would be with the Holy Spirit and fire together. This apparently happened on the day of Pentecost initially (Acts 2:3-4).
The fire in Malachi's prophecy probably refers to purification and judgment. The purification emphasis is in harmony with Malachi's use. This has led many scholars to conclude that the fire baptism that John predicted is not the one at Pentecost.160They believe that the time when Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire to fulfill these prophecies concerning Israel is yet future from our viewpoint in history. It will happen at His second advent. It would have happened at His first advent if Israel had accepted Him. Jesus' baptism of His disciples on the day of Pentecost was a similar baptism, they say. However, it was not the fulfillment of these prophecies since they involved Israel and "the day of the Lord"specifically (cf. John 14:17; Acts 2; 1 Cor. 12:13).161
The context, which speaks of blessing for the repentant but judgment for the unrepentant, tends to favor two baptisms (vv. 8-10, 12; cf. Acts 1:5; 11:16). In this case the fire would refer primarily if not exclusively to judgment.162The baptism with the Holy Spirit would refer to Spirit baptism that will happen when Israel accepts her Messiah (Isa. 44:3; Joel 2:28-32). A foretaste of that baptism occurred on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). The baptism with fire would refer to Jesus' judgment of unrepentant Israel (cf. v. 12). After Israel's rejection of Jesus, it became clear that this national judgment will happen primarily at His second coming. This fiery judgment might also refer to unrepentant individuals when they reach the end of their lives.
All things considered it seems likely that John was referring to one baptism that took place initially on the day of Pentecost but which will find complete fulfillment at Jesus' second coming.
Verse 12 metaphorically describes God separating the true and the false, the repentant and the unrepentant, in a future judgment. This thorough judgment will result in the preservation of the believing Israelites and the destruction of the unbelieving (cf. 25:31-46). The barn probably refers to the kingdom and the "unquenchable fire"to the endless duration and the agonizing nature of this punishment.
"Unquenchable fire' is not just metaphor: fearful reality underlies Messiah's separation of grain from chaff. The nearness' of the kingdom therefore calls for repentance (v. 2)."163
What then was the essential message of Messiah's forerunner?
"John preached botha personal salvation, involving the remission of sins (Mark 1:4), anda national salvation, involving the establishment of the millennial kingdom with Israel delivered out of the hand of their enemies (Matt. 3:2; Luke 1:71-75)."164
Jesus' baptism was the occasion at which His messiahship became obvious publicly. Matthew recorded this event as he did to convince his readers further of Jesus' messianic qualifications.
3:13-14 John hesitated to baptize Jesus because he believed that Jesus did not need to repent. John evidently suggested that it was more appropriate that Jesus baptize him than that he baptize Jesus because he knew that Jesus was more righteous than he was. It is unlikely that John meant that he wanted the Spirit and fire baptism of Jesus. John did not know that Jesus was the Messiah until after he had baptized Him (John 1:31-34).
3:15 John agreed to baptize Jesus only after Jesus convinced him that by baptizing Him both of them would "fulfill all righteousness."What did Jesus mean?
An important prerequisite to understanding Jesus' words is an understanding of the meaning of "righteousness."Matthew's use of this word is different from Paul's. Paul used it mainly to describe a right standing before God, positional righteousness. Matthew used it to describe conformity to God's will, ethical righteousness.165Ethical righteousness is the display of conduct in one's actions that is right in God's eyes. It does not deal with getting saved but responding to God's grace. In Matthew a righteous person is one who lives in harmony with the will of God (cf. 1:19). Ethical righteousness is a major theme of the Old Testament, and it was a matter that concerned the Jews in Jesus' day, especially the Pharisees.
Jesus understood that it was God's will for John to baptize Him. There is no Old Testament prophecy that states that Messiah would undergo water baptism, but there is prophecy that Messiah would submit Himself to God (Isa. 42:1; 53; et al.). That spirit of submissiveness to God's will is primarily what John's baptism identified in those who submitted to it. Consequently it was appropriate for Jesus to undergo John's baptism, and John consented to baptize Him. In doing so, Jesus authenticated John's ministry and identified Himself with the godly remnant within Israel.
"The King, because of His baptism, is now bound up with His subjects."166
"Jesus' baptism in the Jordan stands as a counterpart of Israel's crossing of the Red Sea at the onset of the Exodus. Thus Jesus transversed the Jordan and then, like Israel, spent a period of time in the wilderness. Jesus, another Moses, on whom the Spirit had been placed (Isa. 63:10-14), would lead the way."167
"Jesus fulfilled the Scripture by replicating in His own life the patterns of God's historical relations with Israel and by accomplishing in His own history the predicted events of prophecy."168
It is significant that Matthew did not describe Jesus' baptism. His emphasis was on the two revelatory events that followed it (cf. 2:1-23).
3:16-17 The Greek text stresses the fact that Jesus' departure from the water and God's attestation of Him as the Messiah occurred at the same time. The NIV translation gives this sense better than the NASB.
The person who saw the Spirit descending was evidently Jesus. Jesus is the person in the immediately preceding context. John the Evangelist recorded that John the Baptist also saw this (John 1:32), but evidently no one but Jesus heard the Father's voice. The phrase "the heavens were opened"or "heaven was opened"recalls instances of people receiving visions from God. In them they saw things unseen by other mortals (e.g., Isa. 64:1; Ezek. 1:1; cf. Acts 7:56; Rev. 4:1; 19:11). The phrase implies that new revelation will follow to and through Jesus. What Jesus saw was the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, not in a dove-like fashion, descending on Him (cf. Luke 3:22). This is the first explicit identification of the Holy Spirit and a dove in Scripture. It was an appropriate symbol because of its beauty, heavenly origin, freedom, sensitivity, and peaceful nature.
"The descent of the Spirit upon Jesus denotes the divine act whereby God empowers him to accomplish the messianic ministry he is shortly to begin (4:17). Such empowerment, of course, is not to be construed as Jesus' initial endowment with the Spirit, for he was conceived by the Spirit. Instead, it specifies in what way Jesus proves to be the mightier One John had said he would be (3:11). It also serves as the reference point for understanding the authority' with which Jesus discharges his public ministry. Empowered by God's Spirit, Jesus speaks as the mouthpiece of God (7:28-29) and acts as the instrument of God (12:28)."169
In Isaiah 42:1 the prophet predicted that God would put His Spirit on His Servant. That happened at Jesus' baptism. Matthew's account shows fulfillment though the writer did not draw attention to it as such here. When God's Spirit came on individuals in the Old Testament, He empowered them for divine service. That was evidently the purpose of Jesus' anointing as well (Luke 4:14; 5:17; cf. Luke 24:49).
An audible revelation followed the visual one (v. 17). The voice from heaven could be none other than God's. After 400 years without prophetic revelation, God broke the silence. He spoke from heaven to humankind again. Matthew recorded God's words as a general announcement (cf. 17:5). The other evangelists wrote that God said, "You are my beloved Son"(Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Evidently the accounts in Mark and Luke contain the actual words God used, the ipisissima verba, whereas Matthew gave a free quotation of God's words, the ipisissima vox.170Matthew did so because he used what happened at Jesus' baptism as evidence of His messiahship.
"Had the crowds heard the voice from heaven, it is inexplicable why one segment of the public does not at least entertain the idea that Jesus is the Son of God. And had John heard the voice from heaven, it is odd that his question of 11:2-3 contains no hint of this. On the contrary, it reflects the selfsame view of Jesus that John had expressed prior to the baptism, namely, that Jesus is the Coming One (3:11-12)."171
The words God spoke identified Jesus as the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. The term "Son of God"was one that God used of David's descendant who would follow him on Israel's throne (2 Sam. 7:13-14; Ps. 2:7; 89:26-29; cf. Matt. 1:20; 2:15; 4:3, 6). God's commendation also linked Jesus with the Suffering Servant at the commencement of His ministry (Isa. 42:1; 53). The Beloved One is equivalent to the One with whom the Father was "well pleased"(Isa. 42:1). Genesis 22:2 may also be behind this announcement since that verse describes Isaac as Abraham's beloved only son. Consequently, Son of God is a messianic title.172Notice the involvement of all three members of the Trinity in Jesus' baptism. This indicates its importance.
In this one statement at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, God presented Him as the Davidic Messiah, the Son of God, the representative of the people, and the Suffering Servant. Matthew had presented Jesus in all of these roles previously, but now God the Father confirmed His identity.
". . . God's baptismal declaration at 3:17 reveals itself to be climactic within the context of 1:1-4:16 because this is the place where God's understanding of Jesus as his Son ceases to be of the nature of private information available only to the reader and becomes instead an element within the story that henceforth influences the shape of events."173
"Because Matthew so constructs his story that God's evaluative point of view is normative, the reader knows that in hearing God enunciate his understanding of Jesus, he or she has heard the normative understanding of Jesus, the one in terms of which all other understandings are to be judged. In Matthew's story, God himself dictates that Jesus is preeminently the Son of God."174
"He did not becomeSon of God at His baptism, as certain heretical teachers in the early Church maintained; but it was then that He was appointed to a work which He alone could perform, because of His unique relationship with His Father."175
Matthew passed over all the incidents of Jesus' childhood, including His appearance at the temple (Luke 2:41-50), because his interests were selective and apologetic rather than merely historical. He introduced Jesus as the messianic King of Israel who fulfilled Old Testament prophecy and received divine confirmation from God with an audible word from heaven (cf. Exod. 20:1).176
In chapter 1 Matthew stressed the glories of Messiah's person. In chapter 2 he gave a preview of the reception He would receive as Israel's Messiah. In chapter 3 he introduced the beginning of His ministry with accounts of His earthly forerunner's heralding and His heavenly Father's approbation.
Jesus' genealogy and virgin birth prove His legal human qualification as Israel's King. His baptism was the occasion of His divine approval. His temptation demonstrated His moral fitness to reign. The natural question a thoughtful reader of Matthew's Gospel might ask after reading God's attestation of His Son (3:17) is, Was He really that good? Jesus' three temptations prove that He was.
"By the end of the baptismal pericope, the Jesus of Matthew's story stands before the reader preeminently as the Son of God who has been empowered with the Spirit of God. So identified, Jesus is led by the Spirit into the desert to engage the devil, or Satan, in conflict in the place of his abode (4:1-11). . . . Ultimately, the substance of each test has to do with Jesus' devotion, or obedience, to God. The intent of Satan in each test is to entice Jesus to break faith with God, his Father, and thus disavow his divine sonship. Should Satan succeed at this, he succeeds in effect in destroying Jesus. In testing Jesus, Satan cunningly adopts God's evaluative point of view according to which Jesus is his Son (4:3, 6)."177
4:1-2 The same Spirit who brought Jesus into the world (1:20) and demonstrated God's approval of Him (3:16) now led Him into the wilderness for tempting by Satan.
"Just as God led Israel out of Egypt and through the waters and into the desert (Num 20.5; 1 Bas12.6; Ps 80.1 LXX; etc., all using anagein[to lead up']), so does the Spirit of God lead Jesus into the desert after he is baptized."178
"According to Hosea 2:14-23, the wilderness was the place of Israel's original sonship, where God had loved His people. Yet because they had forsaken Yahweh their Father, a renewal' of the exodus into the desert was necessary for the restoration of Israel's status as the son' of God. In this new exodus, God's power and help would be experienced again in a renewed trek into the wilderness."179
The wilderness of Judea (3:1) is the traditional site. Israel had, of course, experienced temptation in another wilderness for 40 years. The number 40 frequently has connections with sin in the Old Testament (cf. Gen. 7:4, 12; Num. 14:33; 32:13; Deut. 9:25; 25:3; Ps. 95:10; Jon. 3:4). Jesus experienced temptation in the wilderness at the end of 40 days and nights.
The Greek word translated "tempted"(peirazo) means "to test"in either a good or a bad sense. Here God's objective was to demonstrate the character of His Son by exposing Him to Satan's tests (cf. 2 Sam. 24:1; Job 1:6-2:7).180God evidently led Jesus into the wilderness to demonstrate the obedience of this Son compared with the disobedience of His son Israel (2:15; cf. Exod. 4:22; Deut. 8:3, 5). God tested both His sons "to prove their obedience and loyalty in preparation for their appointed work."181
Fasting in Scripture was for a spiritual reason, namely to forego a physical need to give attention to a more important spiritual need.182During this fast Jesus ate nothing but presumably drank water (cf. Luke 4:2). Moses and Elijah, two of God's most significant servants in the Old Testament, likewise fasted for 40 days and nights (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 9:9; 1 Kings 19:8). Jesus' fast would have connected Him with these servants of the Lord in the minds of Matthew's Jewish readers, as it does in ours.
4:3-4 Satan attacked Jesus when He was vulnerable physically. The form of Satan's question in the Greek text indicates that Satan was assuming that Jesus was the Son of God (3:17).183
"The temptation, to have force, must be assumed as true. The devil knew it to be true. He accepts that fact as a working hypothesis in the temptation."184
This temptation was not to doubt that reality. It was to suggest that as the Son of God Jesus surely had the power and right to satisfy His own needs independent of His Father. Satan urged Jesus to use His Sonship in a way that was inconsistent with His mission (cf. 26:53-54; 27:40). God had intended Israel's hunger in the wilderness to teach her that hearing and obeying God's Word is the most important thing in life (Deut. 8:2-3). Israel demanded bread in the wilderness but died. Jesus forewent bread in submission to His Father's will and lived.
"The impact of Satan's temptation is that Jesus, like Adam first and Israel later, had a justifiable grievance against God and therefore ought to voice His complaint by murmuring' (Exod. 16; Num. 11) and ought to provide for Himself the basic necessity of life, namely, bread. Satan, in other words, sought to make Jesus groundlessly anxious about His physical needs and thus to provoke Him to demand the food He craved (cf. Ps. 78:18). In short, the devil's aim was to persuade Jesus to repeat the apostasy of Adam and Israel. Satan wanted to break Jesus' perfect trust in His Father's good care and thereby to alter the course of salvation-history."185
The wilderness of Judea contains many limestone rocks of all sizes and shapes. Many of these look like the loaves and rolls of bread that the Jews prepared and ate daily.
Jesus' response to Satan's suggestion (v. 4) reflected His total commitment to follow God's will as revealed in His Word. He quoted the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 8:3. Its application originally was to Israel, but Jesus applied it to everyone and particularly Himself. By applying this passage to Himself Jesus put Himself in the category of a true "man"(Gr. anthropos).
"Matthew here shows that Jesus is not God only, but an unique theanthropic person, personallyqualified to be King of Israel."186
Everyone needs to recognize and acknowledge his or her total dependence on God and His Word. Jesus' real food, what sustained Him above all else, was His commitment to do the will of His Father (John 4:34).
In this first temptation Satan's aim was to seduce Jesus into using His God-given power and authority independently of His Father's will. Jesus had subjected Himself to His Father's will because of His mission (cf. Phil. 2:8). It was uniquely a personal temptation; it tested Jesus' person.
4:5-7 The setting for the second temptation was Jerusalem. Matthew referred to it with a favorite Jewish term, "the holy city"(cf. Neh. 11:1; Isa. 48:2; Dan. 9:24; Matt. 21:10; 27:53). This suggests that the temptation would have national rather than solely individual implications. Satan took Him to the highest point of the temple complex (Gr. hieron), not necessarily the topmost peak of the sanctuary. It towered over the Kidron Valley far below.187Some of the Jewish rabbis taught that when Messiah came to deliver Israel He would appear on the temple roof (cf. Mal. 3:1; John 6:30).188
"Jerusalem was considered the center of the nations, with lands around her,' the center of the world,' whose inhabitants dwell at the center of the earth' (Ezek. 5:5; 38:12; . . .). Thus when Jesus stood on the pinnacle of the temple, He was, theologically speaking, at the center of the world. From that vantage point the Messiah most naturally could claim the nations as His own and rule them with a rod of iron . . ."189
Again the devil granted that Jesus was the Son of God. Satan quoted the Septuagint version of Psalm 91:11-12 appealing to the authority that Jesus used, namely God's Word (v. 4). He omitted the words "to guard you in all your ways."Many expositors have assumed that Satan wanted to trick Jesus with this omission, but his free method of quoting was very common. Many New Testament writers quoted the Old Testament in the same loose way.
Probably Satan wanted Jesus to demonstrate His trust in God in a spectacular way to challenge God's faithfulness. He misapplied the Scripture he quoted. The Psalms passage refers to anyone who trusts in God. That certainly applied to Jesus. The verses promise that the angels will uphold such a person as a nurse does a baby (cf. Num. 11:12; Deut. 1:31; Isa. 49:22; Heb. 1:14). God had revealed Himself most particularly at the temple throughout Israel's history. Therefore what better place could there have been to demonstrate the Son of God's confidence in His Father's promise?
Jesus refused Satan's suggestion (v. 7) because the Scriptures forbade putting God to a test, not because He questioned God's faithfulness to His promise. Satan tempted Jesus to test God. Israel had faced the same test and had failed (Exod. 17:2-7; cf. Num. 20:1-13). It is wrong to demand that God prove Himself faithful to His promises by giving us what He has promised on our terms. The proper procedure is simply to trust and obey God (Deut. 6:16-17).
"Testing is not trusting."190
Jesus refused to allow Satan to applya valid promise so it contradicted another teaching in God's Word. "On the other hand"or "also"(Gr. palin) has the sense of "not contradicting but qualifying."191Jesus as a man, voluntarily under the authority of God's Word, proved to be faithful to its spirit as well as to its letter.
4:8-10 The high mountain to which Satan took Jesus next is traditionally near Jericho, but its exact location is not important. It simply provided a vantage point from which Satan could point out other kingdoms that surrounded Israel.
"The placement of Jesus on the mountain of temptation, where He refused to acknowledge the devil's authority,' is deliberately juxtaposed to the mountain (Matt. 28:16) of the great commission,' on which He later affirmed that all authority' in heaven and on earth had been granted to Him (28:18)."192
Luke's wording suggests that Satan presented all the kingdoms of the world to Jesus in a vision (Luke 4:5).193This temptation would have universal significance, not just personal and national significant as the first and second temptations did.
Satan offered Jesus immediate control over all the kingdoms of the world and the glory connected with reigning over them (v. 9), something that God would give Him eventually as the Messiah.194In the will of God, Jesus would achieve universal rule (Ps. 2) but only as the Suffering Servant who would have to endure the Cross first.
God's divine authentication of His Son (3:16-17) drew attention to both Jesus' Davidic messiahship and His Suffering Servant role. This temptation consisted of an opportunity for Jesus to obtain the benefits of messiahship without having to experience its unpleasant elements. To get this, however, Jesus would have to change His allegiance from God to Satan. This involved idolatry, putting someone or something in the place that God deserves. Later Peter suggested the same shortcut to Jesus and received a sharp rebuke as Satan's spokesman for doing so (16:23).
This was a legitimate offer. Satan had the ability, under the sovereign authority of God, to give Jesus what he promised (cf. 12:25-28; Luke 10:18; Eph. 2:2). Israel, God's other son, had formerly faced the same temptation to avoid God's uncomfortable will by departing from it and had failed (Num. 13-14). This third temptation, like the other two, tested Jesus' total loyalty to His Father and His Father's will. Had Jesus taken Satan's bait He would have been Satan's slave albeit a world ruler.
"Jesus was in effect tempted to subscribe to the diabolical doctrine that the end justifies the means; that, so long as He obtained universal sovereignty in the end, it mattered not how that sovereignty was reached . . ."195
For a third time Jesus responded by quoting Scripture to His adversary (v. 10). He banished Satan with the divine command to worship and to serve God alone (Deut. 6:13).
4:11 Having resisted Satan's attacks successfully the enemy departed temporarily (cf. James 4:7). God sent messengers to assist His faithful Son. The Father rewarded the Son with divine assistance and further opportunity for service because Jesus had remained faithful to Him.
Many have observed that Satan followed the same pattern of temptation with Jesus that he had used with Eve (Gen. 3). First, he appealed to the lust of the flesh, the desire to dosomething apart from God's will. Second, he appealed to the lust of the eyes, the desire to havesomething apart from God's will. Third, he appealed to the pride of life, the desire to besomething apart from God's will (cf. 1 John 2:16).
"Approaching Jesus three times in Matthew's story, Satan urges him to place concern for self above allegiance to God."196
"All three of the tests are variations of the one great temptation to remove His Messianic vocation from the guidance of His Father and make it simply a political calling."197
Each of Jesus' three temptations related to His messiahship: the first to Him personally, the second to the Jews, and the third to all the nations (cf. 1:1). The twin themes of Jesus' royal kingship and His suffering servanthood, which combined in the name Immanuel, "God with us"(1:23), were in tension in the temptation. They remained in tension and created conflict in Jesus' ministry as it unfolded.
"In the first temptation Jesus does not denythat He is hungry and able to make bread; in the second, He does not denythat He is the Son of God, and under special protection; and in the third, He does not denythe Kingdom or dominion which is to be given to Him, but only rejects the modeby which it is to be obtained. As observed, if such a Kingdom is not covenanted, predicted, and intended, the temptation would not have any force."198
"In this pericope [4:1-11] we encounter a theme that is vital in the theology of the Gospels. The goal of obedience to the Father is accomplished, not by triumphant self-assertion, not by the exercise of power and authority, but paradoxically by the way of humility, service, and suffering. Therein lies true greatness (cf. 20:26-28). In fulfilling his commission by obedience to the will of the Father, Jesus demonstrates the rightness of the great commandment (Deut 6:5) as well as his own submission to it."199
In the first major section of his Gospel, Matthew showed that Jesus had all the qualifications to be Israel's Messiah--legally, scripturally, and morally. He was now ready to relate Jesus' presentation of Himself to Israel as her King.
